48

No. I suggest the best source for this is probably the ruling of the Supreme Court itself. I'd encourage you to read it in full - it's not long and surprisingly readable. The legal argument the Court made starts by establishing that courts have the right to limit the use of the Royal Prerogative (for example, see paragraph 32). It further establishes ...


41

In the UK constitutional system, the Queen is not above the judiciary—she is the judiciary. As Wikipedia notes: The sovereign is deemed the "fount of justice"; although the sovereign does not personally rule in judicial cases, judicial functions are performed in his or her name. For instance, prosecutions are brought on the monarch's behalf, and courts ...


33

There was legislation that provided for the House of Lords to hear cases during prorogation. section 8 Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/39-40/59/enacted Hearing and determination of appeals during prorogation of Parliament For preventing delay in the administration of justice, the House of Lords may sit and ...


28

It is far too early to tell to what degree the Government's options have been constrained. A key part of the advice is paragraph 50; For the purposes of the present case, therefore, the relevant limit upon the power to prorogue can be expressed in this way: that a decision to prorogue Parliament (or to advise the monarch to prorogue Parliament) ...


26

No. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49810261 The notion of unlawful here means only that the prorogation does not comply with how the supreme court interprets the political rule book. It doesn't actually mean any actual law was broken, or anything criminal occurred. It is no different than saying, a law is unconstitutional. legislators who draft ...


24

IANAL, but probably the only thing he could be charged with is misconduct in public office. I haven't seen anyone suggest that he should be charged (for this, this time). The charge does not require one to break some explicit statute. It also applies "where there is no relevant statutory offence, but the behaviour or the circumstances are such that they ...


20

When you start to consider the way the UK constitution works you need to distinguish clearly "The Queen" (a 93 year old woman who likes horses and Corgi dogs) from "The Queen" (Dei Gratia Monarch of the UK, embodiment of the power of the State). As the spelling is the same, it is easy to become confused, but The Queen is not the same as The Queen. The ...


19

The court put stringent limits that prevent a PM to abuse the power If the judgement's pdf is to go by, oversight on whether prorogation is justified or not seems to now be firmly in the Court's hands. This is very new. Basically, the PM can no longer prorogue on a whim, and the court took and reserved the right to decide -- complete with guidance for lower ...


18

While this is a small difference, the supreme court found that the prorogation was unlawful rather than illegal. This may seem pedantic, but the law is often so. Boris will not be charged with a crime, because there is no crime to charge him with. It is possible that he will break a law over this, but until he has done so it is impossible for charges to be ...


10

The Supreme Court has ruled that a prorogation designed to frustrate the function of Parliament is unlawful without justification. Your scenario fits that description.


9

Or did the Supreme Court decide that the document, even though duly signed, had no validity because it was issued on the basis of bad advice? I think that's about the size of it. In practice, the Government advises the Crown to prorogue and the Crown follows that advice. In this case, the Supreme Court found the advice was unlawful and ultimately ...


9

The Queen' Speech can only be given if Parliament has been prorogued. Given that there legally has not be a prorogation, there currently cannot be a Queens Speech. By my understanding of the court ruling, there can be a prorogation in the future. The Supreme Court found that this prorogation was void because it frustrated the will of Parliament and ...


9

The limits can only be decided by a court, because the UK does not have written constitution setting them out. The PM advises the queen to prorogue Parliament. There is an unwritten rule that the advice should be given in good faith, for the smooth running of parliament rather than any political end. A court would have to decide if any particular advice to ...


8

The government is responsible for negotiating the UK's exit from the EU (or cancelling it), so the idea Parliament could come to some kind of conclusion is really a distortion of the truth used by politicians trying to justify their actions. Parliament can only agree or reject a proposal that the government presents to it (a deal or no-deal), or pass a ...


6

Official briefing on the Prerogative. Three fundamental principles of the prerogative are: • The supremacy of statute law. Where there is a conflict between the prerogative and statute, statute prevails. Statute law cannot be altered by use of the prerogative; • Use of the prerogative remains subject to the common law duties of fairness and reason. It is ...


6

From a legal standpoint, I've been unable to find any evidence of a limit on the length of prorogation, other than that prorogation cannot continue beyond the date when the current Parliament would end prior to a general election. Hence, following on from what "user" points out in their answer, so long as no court rules that the advice to prorogue was ...


6

my understanding is that, in practice, the power is held by the government and the PM's "advice" is actually mandatory That's true, with one crucial caveat: if the Queen is required to, say, sign a document in order for that document to have legal effect, then she must actually sign that document. If the Queen refuses to follow the PM's advice - however ...


4

Highly unlikely Most high courts (regardless of country) prefer to keep themselves out of the political process. When cases like this come up, they want to tailor things as narrowly as possible as to the question before them. In this case, the UK Supreme Court said this (trimmed for relevance) The power to prorogue is limited by the constitutional ...


4

There seems to have been a precedent in 1948, not of extending but rather of two prorogations in sequence. At the time, Atlee's Labour government was seeking to change the Parliament act of 1911. He intended to reduce the Lords' powers so they would be not be able to stall his nationalization agenda beyond the life of Parliament: A bill was introduced in ...


4

The Queen could dismiss PM Boris and order an election. It happened in Australia! The Queen (through her representative the governor-general) in 1975 dismissed the then Labour government because they were bankrupting the country.


3

Does the Supreme Court actually have the ability to overrule the monarch, on the basis that she has been badly advised? Yes. The Supreme Court wields the monarch's authority. She can overrule herself.


3

Only Her Majesty can prorogue Parliament. If Her Majesty refuses a request by the Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament, then that session of Parliament will continue. As for overruling Her Majesty, Parliament would have no need to do so. If Parliament is not prorogued, then each House already has the power to decide when it sits. If it chooses not to ...


3

Passing laws takes time, which is in extremely short supply. The final deadline is the 31st of October. The real deadline, at least at the moment, is the 17th of October (the final EU summit before Brexit day, and the last "regular" opportunity to ask for an extension). Parliament will be prorogued from some time next week (of the 9th of September) and ...


2

Prorogation is a royal prerogative. Parliament can modify royal prerogatives, or appropriate them, but to do so it requires the Queen's consent, which in practice means the consent of the government. (See here for an explanation of Queen's consent in the context of the September 2019 anti-no-deal bill).


2

Yes, and Parliament has done so at least twice before. For example: The Meeting of Parliament Act 1797, which effectively sets the minimum length of a prorogation. The Prorogation Act 1867, which "[simplifies] the forms of prorogation during a recess of Parliament".


1

At this point the court has not ruled that what he did was illegal, only that it did not comply with the laws of the land and thus should be voided. If he tries to prorogue again or refuses to follow the law created by the Ben Act (to request an extension from the EU) he could be ordered by the court to do so and then held in contempt of court if he didn't.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible